Thursday, January 15, 2009

What Happened To Global Warming?

GENESEE COUNTY, Michigan -- Here's the bad news: Flint broke a 95-year-old record early Wednesday morning when the temperature plummeted to a frigid 19 below zero. The previous record? Minus 10, set in 1914, according to the National Weather Service. Here's the even worse news: We won't be seeing relief in the next few days.

The people who believe in global warming will say that global warming is the cause of all extremes; be they extreme heat, extreme cold, extreme hurricanes, etc. Doesn't pass the smell test to me, but that is what they will say. And, OBTW, Obama is one of the believers.

fboness has it right. the next ice age is about to unfold. here's a nice graph to illustrate.

the problem with the global warming "science" is that it only looks at a tiny slice of climate history.

that said, i'm certainly not adverse to cleaning up auto and energy generation emissions. frankly, i just don't like to breathe that crap. its like throwing your garbage out the window into the back yard.

I hope the people who owned the cars were able to scrape the ice off after having a great day enjoying the lake.

Too bad it wasn't big al and the new "climate czarina" frolicking by the lake. I am sure these socialists and dabblers in science cannot see the humor and arrogance in the title "climate czar". But then the guy that decided on that title also created the "office of the President elect". I guess smugness becomes them.

This argument/post distracts from the well articulated view this blog normally tends to have. Using Flint's weather to refute global warming is a myopic way to argue such a complex subject. It is a subject that should be open for critical dialogue from both sides. The answer at this point is subjective and should be treated so. This posts closes that open debate through misrepresentation of one side of climate change argument. This blog offers an open place for debate of economic policies (I have read both conservative and liberal ideas here)...why not invite a similar forum on all topics.

I found a site that had mean Chicago temperatures since 1900. I regressed it vs the year and extrapolating those temps out to 2100 which gives a temperature in that year of 0.03 degrees C higher than it is now. A Geological Survey scientist laughed it off and told me the data didn't mean anything. These guys are very arrogant. So, arrogant that they believe they can forecast and extapolate their numbers out 100 years but they don't believe my extrapolation. Think about it, they don't think that any new phenomena will come to light to change their opinions in the next 100 years. This closed-mindedness is not science.

Oh, cut the man a break! I'm sure that the author was just humorously indulging in a bit of hyperbole to take the chill off.

However, there is enough evidence of a non-anecdotal nature to safely say that global warming - which was always a natural cyclical phenomenon - IS OVER! Further, CO2 levels are a PRODUCT of climate change, not the cause of it. So cut out all the "carbon footprint" nonsense.

> Using Flint's weather to refute global warming is a myopic way to argue such a complex subject.

Oh, gimme a break. A couple record warm temperatures in the summer, and the media is outdoing Chicken Little. The exact same data that says it's getting colder? "What? No, I don't see any data. I see NuuTHINK!! I see NUUTHINK!!"

Most people who don't believe in global warming have a clue how little a single random number -- even a record random number -- says about LONG TERM CLIMATE.

It's the idiots who think that even **10 years** of data says something other than JACK SHIT about long-term trends that are the problem.

The weather in Flint doesn't change our position. We already know how little it means. But you can bet your ass we're going to shove it in the face of every True Believer who gets hysterical in the summertime.

> This post closes that open debate

"Open debate"? Last *I* heard it was all settled. There was no debate. Anyone who disbelieved was a brainless denier, a loon, or a two-bit quack in the pay of the oil companies.

It would appear that we who think we are extensively knowledgeable (some of us even infallible) about economics are equally authoritative in meteorology and the other closely related sciences.

The preponderance of the world's meteorological scientists concur that this round of global warming is real and that it is substantially caused by human activity.

I choose to trust these real experts and the world would be well-advised to do the same.

Not suggesting that there are any on this blog, but extreme right-wing demagogues - like Limbaugh - always and consistently rail against almost all new scientific developments and have coined the phrase "junk science" and enjoy repeating it ad nauseum. Apparently it started with their rejection of evolution and ever since - in order to be consistent - science and scientists have been and continue to be demonized. Could it be that it is they - the anti-scientists - who are actually the "cultists"?

Economists can't even accurately forecast economic activity. Yet, meteorologists believe they can accurately forecast climate change, which is a much more complex exercise, when they can't even predict the weather more than five days away. Humans will always believe they're more important than they really are.

Global warming...Its the oldest scam in the book brought to a new height. Basically this: Vote for me or you will die. Vote for me and I will save you.

Barack Obama: “I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

bobble was right on the money with his -1/15 4:12PM post as far as we should clean up emissions.

--------------------------If we reduce emissions and it turns out that there wasn't man-made climate change that's a good thing because we get to live in a cleaner environment right?...

On the other hand, if it turns out there WAS man-made climate change and we do nothing that's not a good thing...

Therefore, we should just reduce pollution and increase alt energy regardless of "man's contribution". It's a win win...

Believe or not in "climate change", you should agree that reducing the crap that we release into the environment is a good thing. So what the he** does it matter if there's a direct relationship or not?...

Professor Perry,I respect your work very much. I enjoy this blog tremendously.I think you have been duped. This photo is from 2005 in Switzerland.http://www.markdaviesmedia.com/cold is the source I know of, but I also recall seeing this photo before.

When I saw Larry Kudlow cite this photo as evidence of anti-climate change I was surprised because, unfortunately, that is just bad reporting. I respect Mr. Kudlow very much as well. I'm not familiar with mustard seeds in actual fact, but I sure did like Goldilocks. She led me down a sad path though. I hope she comes back soon!

Would you please let Mr. Kudlow aware of the origin of the picture he used on the show? I will be very interested to see if he reports the error of his ways.

With all due respect, carbon dioxide is a non-toxic, simple molecule which you exhale when you breath. It is not a pollutant which is defined as an impurity or comtaminant. Reducing CO2 will therefore do nothing to improve air quality or reduce smog.

Carbon is the basic building block of all life on earth which is why it is incredibly difficult to reduce CO2. Don't they teach chemistry on your planet?

90% of green house gases are in fact in the form of water vapour not carbon dioxide.

What is truly interesting is the ratio of climate change die-hards to people who have doubts on this forum. A year ago, the global warming crowd outnumbered the doubters about 2:1 and the numbers have more than reversed.

One poster attributes this to the presence of right wingnuts but regulars know that we have a pretty even distribution of political views with only a few posters representing far right views. Isn't it also possible that people are noticing that certain predictions have failed to materialize:

In short, the public are starting to wonder whether the attempt to bypass debate and jump to a public policy discussion by declaring a consensus was premature. When one considers the demonization of any scientist who questions this theory, it looks more like McCartyism than science.

The earth has been cooling and warming since it's inception. There was the mini ice age, then the earth warmed again, long before industrialization. Was it because people and cows were farting too much. I don't think so. If you look at sun spot activity relative to the climate changes, you have the answer. I'm not saying that a major change in the earth's temperture could not have negitive effects, but it has nothing to do with the human population. Check out the newsweek article on global cooling written in 1975. So what happened after the cooling period was over. My god it started to warm. Oh please not that, we wouldn't want to stay warm and have the earth warm back to it's average temperture. America wake up. The bigger the crisis the democrats can convince you we have, the easier it is tax you.